Jump to content

2019 Oscars Thread


Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, johnny said:

Imo the biggest atrocity of the night 

 

 

This movie just sucked up and down. It felt like some made-for-TV soapy hackjob. I did laugh in disbelief at how corny it was several times though, so at least it was bad enough to be funny again here and there. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Emblazon said:

As an editor, the cuts and beats in that scene make my fucking eyes bleed. 

It actually gave me an almost nauseating feeling, like those videos of people cutting randomly shaped cake slices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, johnny said:

Imo the biggest atrocity of the night 

 

 

This is... actually in the movie? Like that?

 

2 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

People who watch the Oscars that don't have a financial stake in the industry should be on the same rocket ride into the sun with the Huckabee family. Why would anyone subject themselves to that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, johnny said:

Imo the biggest atrocity of the night 

 

 

 

Holy crap...that should come with a warning. I mean that kind of quick cutting is more likely to cause seizures than flashing lights!!!

 

I rarely watch the Oscars because frankly I don't give a crap about seeing the industry pat itself on the back, but I was pleased to hear that Spidey won. I love Disney and Pixar, but Spidey definitely was the best animated flick this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't quite understand all of the criticisms against Green Book. I never had the impression that they were claiming that racism was solved afterwards, or that Tony was the big hero, or whatever. In fact, it's quite explicitly stated in the movie (and also in the trailer) that "it takes courage to change people's heart". Dr. Shirley goes around trying to change people's attitudes, and by the end we concretely see that he was  very successful in this regard with Tony, and indeed throughout the movie with various people. To me the movie is saying simply that Dr. Shirley was very courageous and it's because of his actions that there is a little less prejudice in the world. Can anyone explain where this criticism is coming from? 

 

That Twitter post above showing all of the white men involved I can certainly understand, but some other points, I'm really not getting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Nokra said:

I don't quite understand all of the criticisms against Green Book. I never had the impression that they were claiming that racism was solved afterwards, or that Tony was the big hero, or whatever. In fact, it's quite explicitly stated in the movie (and also in the trailer) that "it takes courage to change people's heart". Dr. Shirley goes around trying to change people's attitudes, and by the end we concretely see that he was  very successful in this regard with Tony, and indeed throughout the movie with various people. To me the movie is saying simply that Dr. Shirley was very courageous and it's because of his actions that there is a little less prejudice in the world. Can anyone explain where this criticism is coming from? 

 

That Twitter post above showing all of the white men involved I can certainly understand, but some other points, I'm really not getting. 

 

I haven't seen the movie myself yet, but perhaps this article can shed some light:

 

http://collider.com/green-book-problems-the-importance-of-feeling-bad/

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Green Book also address Dr. Shirley's sexuality? He was gay as well as being black and I heard the film ignored that aspect of his life entirely also. I'm sure it's a fine, well acted well produced movie and I'll catch it on cable one day when I have literally nothing else to do... but I've seen this movie before. Dozens of times... be interesting to see if a film that deals with race that doesn't also have the dual objective of making certain segments of the population "feel good" will ever win best picture. I guess Crash is the closest thing we got to that?:p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Did Green Book also address Dr. Shirley's sexuality? He was gay as well as being black and I heard the film ignored that aspect of his life entirely also. 

One of the pivotal moments in the narrative directly deals with the revelation that Shirley was gay. Maybe whoever told you that got up and went to the restroom during that scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soooooo, it looks more and more like Green Book won due to some espionage to keep Netflix’s Roma from taking best picture. The trades all have articles about this.

 

The Oscars are the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, johnny said:

Yes sir 

 

That’s really bad, I assumed that the actors weren’t in the same room or something. Ugh. 

 

25 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Soooooo, it looks more and more like Green Book won due to some espionage to keep Netflix’s Roma from taking best picture. The trades all have articles about this.

 

The Oscars are the worst.

 

Ahem. 

 

17 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

People who watch the Oscars that don't have a financial stake in the industry should be on the same rocket ride into the sun with the Huckabee family. Why would anyone subject themselves to that?

QFT :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

One of the pivotal moments in the narrative directly deals with the revelation that Shirley was gay. Maybe whoever told you that got up and went to the restroom during that scene.

 

A couple of the articles discussing the film mentioned that his sexuality was downplayed... again, I haven't seen it so I can't comment. Like I said, I'm sure it's an entertaining movie and I'll see it eventually.

On a side note, I didn't realize the real Tony Lip eventually became an actor and played Carmine Lupertazzi on the Sopranos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

A couple of the articles discussing the film mentioned that his sexuality was downplayed... again, I haven't seen it so I can't comment. Like I said, I'm sure it's an entertaining movie and I'll see it eventually.

On a side note, I didn't realize the real Tony Lip eventually became an actor and played Carmine Lupertazzi on the Sopranos. 

Spoiler

Fairly deep into the movie, Tony gets a call from the police late at night. Tony goes to the YMCA where Don and another man have been caught having sex. Tony bribes the officer to let them go. This is where we find out Tony is both not a racist AND not homophobic :p

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

A couple of the articles discussing the film mentioned that his sexuality was downplayed... again, I haven't seen it so I can't comment. Like I said, I'm sure it's an entertaining movie and I'll see it eventually.

On a side note, I didn't realize the real Tony Lip eventually became an actor and played Carmine Lupertazzi on the Sopranos. 

As @sblfilms said, they do show that he was gay or at least that he had bisexual tendencies. I guess I can kind of see where someone might say that they downplayed this aspect of him a bit, but honestly, I don't really understand that criticism either. I didn't think the point of the story was really about him being gay, so I'm OK with it if they don't want to explore this aspect of him. Does it maybe make the film a bit less historically accurate? Sure. But I don't think that that detracts from the message of the film. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I haven't seen the movie myself yet, but perhaps this article can shed some light:

 

http://collider.com/green-book-problems-the-importance-of-feeling-bad/

I read the article now, thanks. It does seem to summarize the criticisms that I'd heard against the movie, but I still largely disagree. They seem to think that the movie is implying things that it shouldn't (e.g. that racism is "solved" by individuals) while also not implying enough about some things (e.g. that systemic racism is still a problem regardless of one person's personal growth). I just disagree that it's doing these things I guess.

 

To the first ("proclaiming all racism is solved through individuals"), I never got the sense that they were trying to say that racism will be solved because of individuals. That seems like an extrapolation that the author is making. To me they're simply telling a (mostly true) story about two individuals. 

 

To the second ("not expounding on the evils of systemic racism"), I can understand what he's saying, but his arguments sound to me like someone who just didn't get the movie they wanted and is then criticizing the movie for not meeting their expectations. He's free to do that obviously, but I enjoyed the film a lot for what it was, which in my view was an uplifting buddy comedy that provided a small window into the lives of two men in the 1960s. The author of that piece seems to think the movie should have handled heavier issues like systemic racism, but personally I don't think that it's the job of every single movie to shock me into action about social issues. I see and love movies that make me think about social issues too, but I honestly wouldn't want all movies to do this. I just enjoyed this movie for what it was.

 

:shrug:

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't hate Green Book. I thought it was completely fine. It's just that nothing about it stuck out to me as exemplary film-making. It's a slow pitch right down the middle. So this makes me think that it's getting awarded for its message. This doesn't anger me, since we've established that all of this is largely meaningless. But it does confuse me a bit, because I honestly didn't think Green Book had much of a message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, TheLeon said:

I don't hate Green Book. I thought it was completely fine. It's just that nothing about it stuck out to me as exemplary film-making. It's a slow pitch right down the middle. So this makes me think that it's getting awarded for its message. This doesn't anger me, since we've established that all of this is largely meaningless. But it does confuse me a bit, because I honestly didn't think Green Book had much of a message.

 

Racism is bad? Fried Chicken is Good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, TheLeon said:

I don't hate Green Book. I thought it was completely fine. It's just that nothing about it stuck out to me as exemplary film-making. It's a slow pitch right down the middle.

As much hate as I'm spewing towards Green Book as a choice for Best Picture, I largely agree with this. It's a fine movie, but it's boring, predictable, and easy. It doesn't take a single risk, and while I do think it's regressive, I don't think it's horribly racist just because it doesn't grapple with the kinds of things we saw in Beale Street.

 

That's largely why I hate it for winning Best Picture though. It's the kind of movie that could have come and gone on Netflix and no one would have noticed. It wouldn't have been on the awards circuit or on critics best of lists. It would (and should) have just passed by without leaving a mark, like so many other mediocre movies do every year.

 

That it's getting undeserved praise for its messaging is just the icing on the cake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...